Domination Endgame Concept Feedback
- Thread starter Baudin Toolan
- Start date
DeletedUser54610
Guest
Love the idea and glad the mods understand most arn't a fan of WW. As for the domination crown you can place the crown where the fighter symbol is. There should be a different reward for domination worlds. WW Worlds (resources) gets favor domination world should get a bonus in attack/defense.
For domination another idea is to have No cities from the alliance lost in a certain time period, and the alliance must reach a certain fighter bps before they can begin their run. You can also add in there that no alliances can begin their run until the top 5 alliances together reach a certain fighter bps so the top alliance doesn't get a huge headstart over everyone else. Just an idea
For domination another idea is to have No cities from the alliance lost in a certain time period, and the alliance must reach a certain fighter bps before they can begin their run. You can also add in there that no alliances can begin their run until the top 5 alliances together reach a certain fighter bps so the top alliance doesn't get a huge headstart over everyone else. Just an idea
DeletedUser54192
Guest
I love the idea of a domination-based endgame. I do have a questions/concerns, but they're more about the specifics than any issue with the overall concept.
Again, I love the overall idea and look forward to when we will get it implemented.
- I think 14 days could be too short for the required period to hold the majority for. For example, if the top players from 2-3 major alliances merged together and instantly got a majority, then 14 days isn't really long enough for the other teams to have a reasonable chance of breaking the domination. This would especially be the case for slower worlds, due to the time required to actually build nukes. Perhaps the countdown could be 28 days?
- I don't think the rewards for Domination and WW victories should be cumulative. Otherwise you'll have a permanent discrepancy between players. If someone joins Grepolis after the switch to Domination, then it would be impossible for them to reach that +100 favour cap. The same would happen to anyone who had been playing before the switch, but hadn't got the +50 favour, whether because they disliked the WW-endgame or because they hadn't managed to get one. Up until now, the only things that older players may have which newer players are physically unable to get, are certain Greposcore awards, which have no impact on gameplay. 550-600 is a big leap in terms of capacity: players can store up enough favour to cast 2 Rage/Storm spells at the same time without needing to use the daily bonus, 3x Purification/Heroic Power (and Bolt, but that's not a good use of favour). That would be a big advantage, and not one that would be fair to restrict. The other way to keep the +100 favour achievable would be to continue to award +50 favour to the first team to complete 4 wonders in Domination Worlds, despite it not being a victory condition. But if there is no longer a WW-favour award, or even no WWs at all, then I feel that it is a bad idea to allow the +50 favour rewards to stack.
- For displaying the Domination Crown (perhaps a golden helmet to distinguish it as a more fighting-orientated victory?), perhaps a player can choose which one they want displayed on their profile, in the same way that you can show/hide the different Greposcore awards?
Again, I love the overall idea and look forward to when we will get it implemented.
DeletedUser44867
Guest
**** I'm adding a disclaimer up here, since this has been an issue with other servers. The opinions listed below are just my own opinions based on comments above, as to spur on more discussion, per se. I'm a big fan of debate and discussion....
Nothing to do with council at all, though. Just because I believe something doesn't mean I'm going to tell that one thing to inner and nothing else - my intentions are still to gather the popular opinion of all of EN and send that to developers.
The 14 day period was one of the main concerns for a few other inner members, as well. Personally, I like the shorter time requirement. When the alliance hits just over 50% is when the fighting will be most difficult - losing one, two cities could end the time entirely. I think the most fighting and most chance of knocking them down from dominance will be done within the first week, when that dominance percentage is just held just above the 50%, and you're close to knocking them out of it. If you haven't beaten them out of it in that first week and they're still growing I don't think you have much of a chance of knocking them out of it overall - so my personal view is that 2 weeks is just enough time to break them out of the 50%, or for the alliance to grow far enough out of it that it's clear they aren't going to be knocked down.
But I do think you definitely have a point with slower worlds, having to actually build nukes and create an army is a much slower process, and it's not very fair if you only have one or two chances to actually make a run at it.
The merging issue is an interesting one, though. I had considered a player or two moving over, but hadn't considered a majority of top players of other alliances banding together and immediately getting over the percentage minimum. Although I'm half on the same stance....
I agree though with the favor rewards. Especially if the wonders aren't even an option to be built. I imagine you would still get the favor reward for building wonders in the new end game idea, but if wonders end up not being a possibility, then it literally becomes an item that is unreachable to new players, which does become really unfair.
I'm not sure I'm a big fan of domination giving an attack/defense bonus to all players permanently though, especially depending on the percentage. The 50 favor is a nice bonus, but I feel like it doesn't give TOO much of power to players - it's just more of a useful thing to be able to build an extra myth or cast an extra spell, in my opinion. If wonders aren't a possibility in the dominance worlds, I think I would prefer just to have the domination reward be 50/unstackable.... if it is a possibility in dominance worlds then I think a different reward would be interesting.
And for crowns - I had been thinking the same thing, that the player could select the crown they wanted to display. I think that might also open up some opportunity for more 'crowns' and more bragging rights. Say, you get a 'crown' display if you're the top attacker of a world at end game - gold for 1st, silver for 2nd, bronze for 3rd...., or top defender, etc. Then players could have an option to choose which one they want to show off sort of thing.
Alternatively, they could have a crown for wonder winners, crown for domination winners, and a crown that shows you won both domination and wonders.
I know a number of players have mentioned concerns that alliances that join later in the game would be at a bigger disadvantage, so I do like the concept of also having a requirement be tied into the top alliances combined in some sense.
Nothing to do with council at all, though. Just because I believe something doesn't mean I'm going to tell that one thing to inner and nothing else - my intentions are still to gather the popular opinion of all of EN and send that to developers.
The 14 day period was one of the main concerns for a few other inner members, as well. Personally, I like the shorter time requirement. When the alliance hits just over 50% is when the fighting will be most difficult - losing one, two cities could end the time entirely. I think the most fighting and most chance of knocking them down from dominance will be done within the first week, when that dominance percentage is just held just above the 50%, and you're close to knocking them out of it. If you haven't beaten them out of it in that first week and they're still growing I don't think you have much of a chance of knocking them out of it overall - so my personal view is that 2 weeks is just enough time to break them out of the 50%, or for the alliance to grow far enough out of it that it's clear they aren't going to be knocked down.
But I do think you definitely have a point with slower worlds, having to actually build nukes and create an army is a much slower process, and it's not very fair if you only have one or two chances to actually make a run at it.
The merging issue is an interesting one, though. I had considered a player or two moving over, but hadn't considered a majority of top players of other alliances banding together and immediately getting over the percentage minimum. Although I'm half on the same stance....
I agree though with the favor rewards. Especially if the wonders aren't even an option to be built. I imagine you would still get the favor reward for building wonders in the new end game idea, but if wonders end up not being a possibility, then it literally becomes an item that is unreachable to new players, which does become really unfair.
I'm not sure I'm a big fan of domination giving an attack/defense bonus to all players permanently though, especially depending on the percentage. The 50 favor is a nice bonus, but I feel like it doesn't give TOO much of power to players - it's just more of a useful thing to be able to build an extra myth or cast an extra spell, in my opinion. If wonders aren't a possibility in the dominance worlds, I think I would prefer just to have the domination reward be 50/unstackable.... if it is a possibility in dominance worlds then I think a different reward would be interesting.
And for crowns - I had been thinking the same thing, that the player could select the crown they wanted to display. I think that might also open up some opportunity for more 'crowns' and more bragging rights. Say, you get a 'crown' display if you're the top attacker of a world at end game - gold for 1st, silver for 2nd, bronze for 3rd...., or top defender, etc. Then players could have an option to choose which one they want to show off sort of thing.
Alternatively, they could have a crown for wonder winners, crown for domination winners, and a crown that shows you won both domination and wonders.
I know a number of players have mentioned concerns that alliances that join later in the game would be at a bigger disadvantage, so I do like the concept of also having a requirement be tied into the top alliances combined in some sense.
DeletedUser54192
Guest
Thanks for the reply, @Phidippidies!
True, if you go a couple of cities over the limit, then losing 1 or 2 would break it and that should be achievable within a week. But, assuming that we get to see the percentage of cities controlled by each alliance as part of the Ranking lists, there are ways to effectively start with a wider gap than just 1 or 2 cities.
Yeah. A player or two could tip it over by a few cities, but a merge of the top players of two alliances could get you fairly safely over that 50%. I mentioned it simply because on recent worlds, I've seen some similar power plays on recent worlds, either directly before WWs, or earlier in the game, just to create 1 alliance that has more firepower than any other individual team. While with WWs it gives a huge advantage in terms of getting the WWs built quickly, in the Domination mode it looks like the process of merging could cause a win just by happening.
I do feel like a favour bonus is one of the safer bonuses. It is beneficial, but it's not a constant buff increasing combat power or resource production. I think it's just the idea of having a top favour cap that is unreachable for a significant portion of the community.
More "crowns" would be interesting, but it also raises the issue that players can cannibalise their way to the top and get those crowns, especially those who can afford to get lots of BP multipliers from events. I think I prefer the idea of a crown for each type of winning, plus possibly a crown that shows you have won both.
Alliances that join later would definitely seem to be at a disadvantage. However I'm not sure it would be quite as much of a disadvantage as it is now under the WW system.
True, if you go a couple of cities over the limit, then losing 1 or 2 would break it and that should be achievable within a week. But, assuming that we get to see the percentage of cities controlled by each alliance as part of the Ranking lists, there are ways to effectively start with a wider gap than just 1 or 2 cities.
Yeah. A player or two could tip it over by a few cities, but a merge of the top players of two alliances could get you fairly safely over that 50%. I mentioned it simply because on recent worlds, I've seen some similar power plays on recent worlds, either directly before WWs, or earlier in the game, just to create 1 alliance that has more firepower than any other individual team. While with WWs it gives a huge advantage in terms of getting the WWs built quickly, in the Domination mode it looks like the process of merging could cause a win just by happening.
I do feel like a favour bonus is one of the safer bonuses. It is beneficial, but it's not a constant buff increasing combat power or resource production. I think it's just the idea of having a top favour cap that is unreachable for a significant portion of the community.
More "crowns" would be interesting, but it also raises the issue that players can cannibalise their way to the top and get those crowns, especially those who can afford to get lots of BP multipliers from events. I think I prefer the idea of a crown for each type of winning, plus possibly a crown that shows you have won both.
Alliances that join later would definitely seem to be at a disadvantage. However I'm not sure it would be quite as much of a disadvantage as it is now under the WW system.
- Any strong alliances that drop into the rim might be behind on growth, but they'll have weaker opponents on average, making it easier for them to grow, at least at first.
- WW encourages multi-branch alliances. The proposed Domination system actively discourages multi-branch alliances - less food for the main branch, and the players in other branches would get nothing in the end. So the scenarios of multi-branch alliances wading out into the rim and crushing all the single-branch alliances should become a lot less common.
- As there is no particular spot that everyone needs to be near to, in order to send defenses, or to defend at all costs, it makes city density a little less important. Yes, you need a core and don't want to be overstretched, but the more spread-out nature of rim alliances looks like it might not be quite as much of an issue in Domination as it is in WWs, where having everything fairly close together is basically vital.
DeletedUser55035
Guest
I like this idea, although I don't like the 14 days domination time. Once an alliance reaches 50%, it will be easy as hell to maintain that 50% for 2 weeks.
Yes, other alliances will try and get them under that 50%, but that doesn't mean the biggest alliance can't just take some cities of some of the smaller (inactive?) alliances.
Therefore I'd suggest to make the domination period 28+ days, and let the 50% slowly grow with 1% (?) each week
Yes, other alliances will try and get them under that 50%, but that doesn't mean the biggest alliance can't just take some cities of some of the smaller (inactive?) alliances.
Therefore I'd suggest to make the domination period 28+ days, and let the 50% slowly grow with 1% (?) each week
DeletedUser55035
Guest
I also think the mods should somehow adjust founding cities during this domination period, as it will be very easy to get the dominating alliance under 50% of the total cities if the rest of the world massively starts founding cities.
DeletedUser30931
Guest
So glad that is getting reworked. WW era is awful
DeletedUser22517
Guest
Welcome to SimCity. One of the worst ideas i ever heard about the end game. After 7 years of thinking this is the best solution you come up with? No wonder this game dying.
We won the last world controlling 20% of cities in the world, building all 7 wonders, playing against entire server from day one with 23 to 1 conquered cities against lost. With this new bright idea we would have lost the server not because the enemy was better or conquered more cities from us but just they were bigger than us.
I strongly suggest to developers to try to play this game before making those dumb ideas. Or just ask your players for a solution when you don`t have smart one.
We won the last world controlling 20% of cities in the world, building all 7 wonders, playing against entire server from day one with 23 to 1 conquered cities against lost. With this new bright idea we would have lost the server not because the enemy was better or conquered more cities from us but just they were bigger than us.
I strongly suggest to developers to try to play this game before making those dumb ideas. Or just ask your players for a solution when you don`t have smart one.
DeletedUser39822
Guest
Money money money.......buy the warfare packages to increase your ability to earn BP to accrue slots. Gold those Olympic Games for slots which will probably increase from 50 gold to 100 gold. Simmers win.....may even promote cannibalizing your own units (another problem that needs to be fixed) for slots instead of promoting war against an enemy. Unless I read it wrong it creates a whole new strategy of just setting up on the rim, attacking your own alliance mates and colonizing instead of conquering. I am always in the top of the rankings for BP but rarely crack the top 100 in city points by choice. The small, well-led, organized alliances will be obsolete.
TobiramaSenju
Phrourach
So there's two ways of beating the opponent in domination stage ; Outbuilding them or taking cities directly from them ?
Gompus Rompus
Phrourach
agree with mungus1974. Another bad idea
DeletedUser51435
Guest
I agree with Mungus here. Simply being the largest alliance is no real test. While reading the proposal it occurred to me that you simply create a MRA of the top point players turtle and your done.
City count is not the only measure of an alliance. In my current world we had only 26 players for most of the server of a 40 cap and we were ranked 3 in ABP and 1 DBP (go figure) but 5th in city count.
I know there is a demand for this kind of world but maybe the simplest solution might be giving the alliance with the most cities an advantage at wonders ... such as faster favor production, faster resource production for wonders. Don't make this tiered make it limited to the number of advantages you want to offer. If it is only the two then the top 2 alliances get that advantage and no one else shares or the no1 in cities gets 100% of 1st advantage and a percentage of the other.
Yes I get the boredom of wonders so it might be best to reduce level requirements to get it over faster. People then move on to another server and are happy again.
Other than that why not consider different servers for revolt/conquest/domination
DeletedUser32254
Guest
The devil is always in the details but so far, I like it.
Now, toss in a random spawn even for invites.
Now, toss in a random spawn even for invites.
DeletedUser47128
Guest
Like the idea but I think these worlds should last longer than just 5 months. A lot of people spend a lot of time on this game. And having the world last only 5 months is kind of a waste of time. In the end, there are people who spend real life dollars in order to win at this game, spending real money on something that will only last a few months. That's like buying eggs at the grocery store and then just letting them sit there for months so they can go bad lol.
Idea is a lot better than WW tho.
Idea is a lot better than WW tho.
DeletedUser41523
Guest
I'll give my thoughts on it. This isn't my ideal solution. Mine would be just getting rid of the end game altogether and returning to the original premise of the game.
That said, nobody has had a better idea since this came out. This at least centers around PvP and it's a nice start. If forced to pick, I'm taking this it's not even a decision that needs to be thought out for me. And I see it as workable provided we point out the flaws and solutions and Inno implements them. Remember, nothing here is final yet and alterations will be considered.
Oh I like you.
That said, nobody has had a better idea since this came out. This at least centers around PvP and it's a nice start. If forced to pick, I'm taking this it's not even a decision that needs to be thought out for me. And I see it as workable provided we point out the flaws and solutions and Inno implements them. Remember, nothing here is final yet and alterations will be considered.
Oh I like you.
DeletedUser54192
Guest
The whole point of this is so that people don't have to build wonders. This is meant to be a new endgame, not the existing endgame with a couple of changes. Yes, there are flaws. But similar flaws already existed. One recent world ended up with the vast majority of the world's top players in a single alliance. So that sort of thing is already happening, regardless of the endgame. While this endgame does have ways it can be exploited, I feel that it is still better than WWs. No matter how the developers have tried to prevent this, WW is still generally dominated by the multi-branch alliances. This new endgame does severely reduce the benefits of multi-branch alliances, and with this change, it means that there may be more alliances with a chance of winning, rather than just the 2-horse or 3-horse race that we see most of the time in WWs.
DeletedUser55169
Guest
maybe an idea, a combination of both. Let domination be the endgame, and do a world wonder stage somewhere half way, reduce them to lvl 5 as 10 takes too much time and gets boring. Each wonder gives the holder a benefit for the rest of the game including domination stage, but wonders can be busted at all time. I was thinking about benefits that can influence the domination stage, like 40% attack buffs, 40% def buffs, 50% resources buffs, 50% favor buffs, 50% reduced time on festivals, 50% less points needed for victory processions, 50% bp buffs, 50% speed buffs.
DeletedUser41523
Guest
A team taking 5/7 wonders. Would own 65% of the map with those buffs. They should be worth building but not overpowered.
DeletedUser55169
Guest
sure, reduce the benefits a bit, but what i like about this idea is that wonders start pretty early so wonderislands will likely be build pretty close to fronts so it gets way more interesting in fighting and busting wonders, so these benefits should be worth busting.
I also think this makes tactics in making pacts and naps more interesting, but i would like to see pacts and naps implemented in the game in buttons, one founder can offer a pact or nap to another founder. He can accept or reject. This should automaticly make it impossible to attack eachother. Founders can end nap or pact, nap takes 1 day before attacking becomes possible, pact takes 5 days. Just an idea lol
I also think this makes tactics in making pacts and naps more interesting, but i would like to see pacts and naps implemented in the game in buttons, one founder can offer a pact or nap to another founder. He can accept or reject. This should automaticly make it impossible to attack eachother. Founders can end nap or pact, nap takes 1 day before attacking becomes possible, pact takes 5 days. Just an idea lol
Last edited by a moderator: